User talk:Risker

Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back. Stats for pending changes trial Category:Wikipedia semi-protected pages Useful things for me to remember or I will never find them again, plus archive links The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Column-generating template families The templates listed here are not interchangeable. For example, using {{col-float}} with {{col-end}} instead of {{col-float-end}} would leave a <div>...</div> open, potentially harming any subsequent formatting. Column templates Type Family Handles wiki table code?† Responsive/ mobile suited Start template Column divider End template Float "col-float" Yes Yes {{col-float}} {{col-float-break}} {{col-float-end}} "columns-start" Yes Yes {{columns-start}} {{column}} {{columns-end}} Columns "div col" Yes Yes {{div col}} – {{div col end}} "columns-list" No Yes {{columns-list}} (wraps div col) – – Flexbox "flex columns" No Yes {{flex columns}} – – Table "col" Yes No {{col-begin}}, {{col-begin-fixed}} or {{col-begin-small}} {{col-break}} or {{col-2}} .. {{col-5}} {{col-end}} † Can template handle the basic wiki markup {| | || |- |} used to create tables? If not, special templates that produce these elements (such as {{(!}}, {{!}}, {{!!}}, {{!-}}, {{!)}})—or HTML tags (<table>...</table>, <tr>...</tr>, etc.)—need to be used instead. Notes [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] {{subst:User:Alison/c}} Messages below please Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Metrics ^ Might interest you, if you haven't seen it already. I guess it's in the navbox, but I hadn't noticed it until yesterday. Hopefully the analysis will be informative. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC) RE: "flicking the switch" Thanks for your kind comments on the Pending Changes discussion page. As you have probably noticed, I am a huge fan of Wiki and want to continue contributing. I didn't want to apply for any upgrade to my status through the back door, as t'were, but if there is a way I can be 'upgraded' I would like info on that. doktorb wordsdeeds 16:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Done. No worries. Happy editing, glad to have you aboard. :-) Risker (talk) 17:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC) That's great, thank you very much. Now all I have to do is get around to visiting the protected articles, you'll usually find me at far more obscure and less vandalism friendly pages :P doktorb wordsdeeds 09:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Er...Maybe I am staring at this too much....There is one page (SummerSlam (2010)) with pending changes....I can't see anything wrong with the edit...but I can't accept the Pending Change? What obvious thing am I missing? Or is there an issue with my status still? doktorb wordsdeeds 04:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Hi Doktorb - chances are that someone else also was reviewing the proposed change, and hit the "accept" button before you had a chance to. As this is only a trial of the pending changes process, there are considerably more reviewers than there are articles in the trial, so sometimes multiple reviewers are looking at the same edit at the same time. (Believe it or not, the first time that happened, we discovered a software glitch that had to be fixed! One never knows what will be discovered during a trial.) You've probably not done anything wrong at all. Risker (talk) 04:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Hey Risker. I am probably sounding very dumb over this, apologies (I'm feeling bad for keeping asking you pointers, too, but anyways...). I am right in thinking there is no big "ACCEPT" button for pending changes? I spotted an outstanding Pending Change entry yesterday, found the edit to be pretty much fine and reasonable, clicked 'edit'....and then got myself stuck...I've tried to read the instructions but it seems to skip past what to do and lands squarely on other guides...Any info would be great! (Once I crack this, I can crack anything.....) doktorb wordsdeeds 14:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Pending changes Reminder to self: Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage and also mw:Pending Changes enwiki trial/Roadmap Talk page watchers are, of course, welcome to comment. Risker (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the edit to the watchlist notice. I fully understand that the anti-PC crowd is fighting a battle they can't win, but I really hate the slanted process and heavy handedness that's been the norm for the past several months...including the lead up to the initial "vote" for the trial. Oh well. Thanks again. --Onorem♠Dil 21:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Oddly enough, I am truly agnostic on this particular bit of software. It's always been my position that it should have a fair trial, but it seems that at every step things have been problematic. First off, there was the fact it was introduced immediately on the heels of two other major UI changes (the addition of revision deletion to the admin toolkit, and the switchover to Vector). Then there was the fact that the version on the test wiki was *not* the version to be introduced here, so nobody could even test it properly on the testwiki. The trial criteria were not developed until just days before the trial itself, and there were no benchmarks set to determine whether or not there was any change over time, or whether that change was positive or negative. The majority of early supporters in the original PC poll wanted it to be focused on BLPs, but for some reason at the end of the poll it was decided that PC should be applied to currently protected or semi-protected articles instead, and those were the articles targeted in the trial. The WMF press on the subject specifically referred to the ability for anonymous and newly-registered users to edit long-time semi-protected articles of high profile topics (the George W. Bush article was specifically mentioned), without discussing this in advance with the community. (It lasted less than 2 days on pending changes, with mountains of vandalism during that period.) Then there was the promise by the lead developer that PC would be shut off at the end of 60 days unless the community clearly requested otherwise.[6] Four days later, when lead developer responsibility changed hands, the new lead developer announced that he would rather keep things running during any review, on a quiet page with only the most interested editors watching.[7] Even with all of this disarray, I still hoped that we could get a reasonable trial of the tool. It was agreed that we'd start off with 2000 articles in the trial, starting with just a few and ramping up so that we'd hit the 2K articles around 2 weeks into the trial, with the expectation that if things went well, we'd add more incrementally, perhaps up to 10K; however, only a handful of administrators participated in adding articles to the trial, and I don't think we ever got above 1500. Further, at that point, we'd pretty well added all of the articles that were eligible under the criteria for the trial, except for ones in categories where one or more administrator had objected to inclusion; as best I can tell, their objections were based on the articles being honey pots for socks. I was one of the most active admins in adding articles to the trial, and I confess I sneaked in a pile of BLPs that technically didn't meet the criteria (they had been semi-protected in the previous 6 months and had fewer than 10 watchers). Indeed, one of the most telling factors on this trial was the fact that very, very few administrators appeared to be interested in using the tool as currently configured. I also note that the time that it has taken edits to be reviewed has continued to lengthen as time has gone on. A few weeks ago, I led a panel on the topic of Pending changes at the New York City Wiki-conference. Thanks to DGG, Becksguy and Jamesofur, who were also on the panel. That same day, keynote speaker Clay Shirky talked about the fact that once a culture is "broken", it is not able to rebound back to its prior state. In my own closing statement, I reflected on that comment, and wondered if pending changes might be the "culture-breaker" for Wikipedia and, if it was, whether or not that would be a good or bad thing. Certainly the manner in which this entire trial has proceeded has shown that there are some pretty huge differences in what people perceive as the way we do things around here. I don't think the pending changes software or its use will be the culture breaker, but the manner in which it is being integrated and promoted into the project might very well be. I am very considerably concerned that this pressure to keep a bit of trial software running has resulted in a level of divisiveness between good-faith Wikipedians from which the community may not recover. Risker (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Thanks even more. I was happy just saying thanks and doing a (hopefully non-annoying) bit of venting. That's a very interesting review of the timeline from your perspective. I've lurked for years without getting involved in much behind the scenes...but it seems there's quite a bit I missed on this subject. --Onorem♠Dil 03:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC) I only just got pointed at this post by a comment on the latest "poll" where it was described as "insightful". I just wanted to leave a comment that I would disagree if I could think of a superlative that worked. I can't so I'll go with insightful, too :-) I've spent some time in the last 2 days on the new "poll" talk page trying to argue basically what your conclusions are here. I know it will likely have no effect on a foregone conclusion, but I still felt honour bound to do it, having become seriously concerned that we will massively damage long term trust and support for at least PC itself, and at worst the entire project. I won't say it's good to see an in depth analysis which supports that worry, because clearly it isn't - but it is good on a personal level to discover that I'm not alone in these concerns. Thank you for such a thoughtful analysis. It should be compulsory reading  Begoon&#149;talk 17:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC) Oh wow, insightful and thoughtful in a single post! I will probably have to turn in my arbitrator hat now. ;-) Thank you for your kind words, Begoon and Orenem (and Ucucha too). This is my perspective from someone who is "from Missouri" on this software; I think actually that there were some positive and useful results that show potential for the use of pending changes in certain circumstances, after it's reconfigured to make it more user-friendly - but we aren't there yet, and keeping it running is not a motivation for anyone to improve it. Risker (talk) 20:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC) Lurking as always... I read this yesterday (iri pointed it out on her talk page). I found it very insightful as well. Regarding the poor deployment and technical issues, the Wikimedia Foundation is continuing to grow (pretty rapidly) and I think a good portion of staffers feel that more money will solve the problems that it's facing. There's been a lot of emphasis on, and push behind, the upcoming fundraiser, unsurprisingly, I guess. But, I think we all know the reality that the future holds. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC) What he said. The attitude seems to be "we need to do something, this is something, therefore we need to do this". This has ceased to be about the pros and cons of this (buggy) piece of software, and become a meta-issue about Jimbo and co's use of the mainspace for experiments. Sure, Jimbo's going to get his way come-what-may (if all this polling doesn't give him a mandate to do it, he'll just keep holding polls until he gets one that does), but every day this goes on is losing a little more goodwill. Quite frankly, if the devs really switched this "trial version" on without any actual way to turn it off—which appears to be the case—heads ought to be rolling. – iridescent 17:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC) Oh, don't kid yourself: they're technically capable of turning this off without any problems, the developers just aren't allowed to. And it would take less than 24 hours to write an adminbot, get it approved, and reset the articles currently on PC to indefinite semi-protection, complete with a list for administrators to review at their leisure. (Actually, that can still be done, though obviously I won't be the one doing it, since I can barely cope with wiki markup.) So there is no difficulty from the technical viewpoint in ending the trial. Risker (talk) 15:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC) PC/socks I saw from the comment above that I still haven't explained myself properly to you. Now that I'm not tussling with you over an article's protection state, I thought it would be a good time to take a deep breath and try to calmly explain why semi-protection works well against sockpuppeteers, even when autoconfirmation is so easy to get. I typically detect a sockpuppeteer by the pattern of edits across multiple articles. My watchlist tends to hover around 11,000 articles (right now it's 11,182). When a sockpuppeteer goes active, what I notice is that the same account has edited a telling group. What that telling group is varies from sockpuppeteer to sockpuppeteer, but they all have one. CharlieJS13, for example, edits the credits to a narrow range of popular music articles and articles about F1 racing. That's it. When he's using an account, he stands out like a sore thumb. Those two groups of articles are extremely active, though: an anonymous edit to either one is difficult to notice. That's compounded by the fact that he edits from a DSL line in London. I could never reasonably attribute an individual anonymous edit from a London DSL line to an article about Lady Gaga to him without psychic powers. Show me an account that did a bunch of stupid edits to get autoconfirmed and then proceeded to edit Lady Gaga songwriting credits and F1 standings, and I know that it's him. Further, the contribution list for the account gives me a handy grouping of all of his edits so that after blocking him, I can undo each and every edit he made in a matter of minutes. That's the basis of my strategy with recurring puppeteers. By keeping articles they are highly interested in semi-protected, the puppeteer is forced to confirm an account. Once he confirms an account, his editing pattern becomes detectable, and he can be dealt with. These tend to be compulsive people: whatever edit they are trying to make is very important to them, and they will return to it time after time in order to make it. I semi-protect the articles they edit for one to three months (depending on how persistent the sockpuppeteer is), they create an account, autoconfirm it, edit, I block and revert all of the edits the account made. Most eventually give up. Even Brexx seems to have nearly stopped (or sufficiently matured that I can no longer detect his edits, which is effectively the same thing). With Brexx, it got pretty silly, since he was so persistent over a wide range of articles. For most socks, it only requires semi-protection of a couple dozen articles. Basically, that's why the argument "semi-protection is worthless against socks, all they have to do is auto-confirm" isn't a very strong argument. It's true enough if you only look at whether the puppeteer could initially make the edit, but that isn't the right place to measure. If I'm able to undo all of the sock's edits shortly after they have been made, that's nearly as good as if they had never been made at all. Semi-protection allows me to do that. There are certainly ways to get past me, but discussing them in detail has problems with WP:BEANS. Fortunately, the bulk of puppeteers aren't bright enough to figure them out on their own.—Kww(talk) 15:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC) Hi Kww, thanks for your comments above; it provides an excellent overview of a particular method of addressing what I'd call "serial editors". I'm going to resist my urge to have a philosophical discussion on what might be considered the "social construct" vs "utilitarian" methods of addressing such users; instead I will clarify that my comments above were not intended in any way to criticise your process in identifying and neutralizing such accounts. In fact, you were not by any stretch of the imagination the only administrator who objected to articles being included in the pending changes trial for this reason; there were several others, but you were just the only one who posted on my page about it. I recognise that there are differing philosophies on how to best address socks, and it seemed to me that it was a potential hornet's nest that did not need to be stirred up for what was supposed to be a two-month trial, particularly one with a tool that several of us realised almost immediately needed some serious modification in order to possibly be useful for articles where these serial accounts tend to show up. I think that a "reviewer information" infobox on the reviewer page, where admins could write a couple of sentences explaining the reason for PC and telling reviewers what to watch for, would have the potential of expanding the ability to identify these editors, and get more eyes watching for the problems; however, it doesn't look like that is even getting serious consideration for the next "trial" version of the software as far as I can see, according to mw:Pending Changes enwiki trial/Roadmap. Ah well. I'm pretty tied up with real world and Arbcom obligations in the next few weeks, but I think it might be a good exercise at some point to have a broader discussion, hopefully involving several others who have dealt with socks and serial editors, to see if it would be possible to flesh out a wider range of methods to address both the negative social aspects of these accounts and the utilitarian aspects of content over contributor. I have a feeling we would all learn something from such a discussion, if we all proceed with lots of respect for each other's points of view, and a willingness to recognise that different approaches fit different situations. (The process you've described above, for example, sounds absolutely perfect for catching "sneaky" vandalism, and as I recall, at least one of the sockers you follow does just that.) Thanks again for commenting here. I apologise for having given the impression that you and other administrators who have been using semi-protection of articles to address socking are doing something wrong. While it had a noticeable effect on the number of articles available to be put into the pending changes trial, it is in keeping with current protection processes, and I can definitely see its appropriateness in certain situations. Risker (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC) Minor users I just came across a user claiming to be a 13-year-old and my steel-trap memory hazily recalled you telling me someone regularly goes through to remove that sort of mention on the user's page. Is the talk page deleted? Or is just the mention of age deleted? Should I just email you his name and stop trying to be useful in any admin capacity? --Moni3 (talk) 21:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC) Hi Moni3 - delete the versions of the page where the editor claims to be a minor and email the diffs to User:Oversight, which links to the Oversighter queue on OTRS - that way the first available operator oversighter will suppress the edits. You can leave a message for the user with the {{subst:User:Alison/c}} template on his/her talk page. Thanks for your watchful eyes. :-) Risker (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC) Should I also delete the actual mention of his age? Because...it's still there. --Moni3 (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC) Erm, yes... :-) Risker (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC) Action failed. I'm taking that personally. Aaaand now I'm gonna email you because I might have broken something. --Moni3 (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC) You did fine, Moni3; step one is accepting that there is a problem. :P I've received your email and done the suppressions. And just to give a quiet round of applause here, DragonflySixtyseven finds many similar pages when he is doing new page patrol and passes them off to oversighters to address. I have a feeling he just hadn't got as far as this user before you found him. :-) Risker (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC) Count Iblis's advocacy block Hi Risker. Count Iblis has been blocked for advocating for Brews even though the advocacy sanctions expired in July. I would appreciate your attention in this matter. Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 04:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC) I believe this is in the process of being corrected. Please do not be too hard on Wgfinley; the sanctions page for that case is pretty much a disaster area, and Count Iblis appears to be conducting himself in a manner very similar to that which led to his previous sanctions—something he might want to consider. Risker (talk) 05:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC) Thank you for the advice and the information. As far as being hard on Wgfinley this was my concluding (and only) comment on ANI [8]. I hope you'll agree it is not too hard on Wgfinley. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 05:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC) Risker, I would pose you a question. While I understand my own role in being banned and how I'm not always civil etc. I'd ask what you mean about Iblis being disruptive leading to another ban possibly. Can you point out what is problematic about his edits? This is of concern because you speak as if it's crystal clear and I don't get that at all. Not trying to be argumentative just trying to understand your viewpoint. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC) I guess again I have to note the refusal to discuss and show what is problematic about the edits in question. This is exetremely disappointing. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC) Not refusing to discuss, simply busy in other areas for what little time I was available yesterday. Both of you are repeating the advocacy behaviours that led to your previous sanctions. If you cannot refrain from doing so, then you will indeed find yourself back in the same boat. Risker (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC) Really? What has been disruptive about our comments? That's the one thing no one is willing to answer. I've not broken any policies nor has Iblis. Perhaps if you are too busy in other areas these vague references to non existant disruption should stop...Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC) The fact that Count Iblis directly refers to himself as Brews' advocate in the recent arbitration enforcement request, and states clearly that he is acting on Brews' behalf, is precisely the type of advocacy that the prior sanctions were intended to address. Many administrators would consider it meatpuppetry, which is against policy. The fact that neither of you see this as inappropriate is a major part of the problem. I'll have no further comment on this. Risker (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC) RFAR title The issue of the RFAR title was open. SlimVirgin is not a clerk, AIUI, and therefore her change of the title was something notably out of order. I simply made a note of her action. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 05:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC) Well, the only person for whom the title of the RFAR was in question was you, Stevertigo; nobody else had a problem with it. It was inappropriate for you to be copy-pasting SlimVirgin's edit summary, when she appropriately reverted your change, and then "signing" her name to it. Risker (talk) 06:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC) Reminder to self Nominate Relations between Zionism and Nazism (Doctoral Thesis) as a POV fork from Mahmoud Abbas. Yes, the author is notable, but his thesis is not, and is appropriately covered already in the main article about the author. Risker (talk) 06:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC) Reminder to Risker, stop talking to yourself, people think it's weird. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC) Aww, but Neutralhomer, sometimes that's the best conversation I'll have all day!  ;-) Risker (talk) 07:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC) That is very true, cause only you agree with yourself. :) People always ask me "why do you talk to yourself?" and I answer "cause my opinion is the only one I trust". :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC) Okay, done. May well have been the only thing I actually accomplished today. :-) Risker (talk) 01:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC) Good luck with the POV fork. Markowitz is a tenious debator who seldom concedes a point. I'm a little surprised that he would push this particular point as it seems blatantly obvious that WP articles covering 20 year dissertations from notable politicians are pretty rare. NickCT (talk) 19:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC) Mike Cejka HI Risker. I see that after a two-month lull, the trivia that was a source of much disruptive editing by a multi IP user has reared its ugly head again. Perhaps we should consider semi-protecting this page for a while. --Kudpung (talk) 23:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC) Well, given that his position has also been supported by autoconfirmed editors (for example, someone fixed the links in that section rather than deleting it, and had been inserting it in the past), I don't think semi-protection is going to do a lot of good. I've kept it on my watchlist for just this reason, although I confess I missed the original insertion. Risker (talk) 01:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC) ANI heads up Hi. :) Somebody you blocked in July popped up via sock to object at ANI, in section titled Hrotovice was blocked by Arbitrator Risker without a valid explanation. I've blocked the sock and left a note on how to appeal at the original user talk, but I figured you might like to know. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC) Thanks, Moonriddengirl. This is indeed a serial socking editor who creates disruption all over the place, and was easily recognized by several checkusers. I just happened to be the one available to do the block. Risker (talk) 12:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC) 85.210.96.0/20 rangeblock I just blocked them for a few hours for a harrassment campaign; I noted after doing so that you'd CU blocked them in July for disruption and vandalism. I don't know what case that's about, obviously, but if the wider case is back you may want to review it... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC) Thanks, GWH. I've given the heads up to another checkuser on where to look, since in theory I am supposed to be earning my mortgage money right now. :-) Risker (talk) 01:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC) October 2010 Hello, Risker. You have new messages at Mattnad's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Rights on prototype.wikimedia.org/flaggedrevs Hi Risker, you've got full rights on http://prototype.wikimedia.org/flaggedrevs now. I also responded to your comment on mediawiki.org. -- RobLa-WMF (talk) 23:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Thanks RobLa-WMF. I'll be over there later in the weekend, I've got to wear the arbitrator hat tonight and probably tomorrow as well, but this is definitely in my target. I don't suppose you could arrange to get a good whack of articles loaded up on there so that all aspects of the tool can be tested by a range of editors? Okay, maybe not 10K all at once, but at least several hundred to start, of varying length and complexity. Featured and good articles, especially those with lots of wiki-code, templates and images, would be particularly useful, since one of the problems to be solved is how to fix the "loading big pages" issue. Risker (talk) 00:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC) Note to talk page watchers: I encourage all of you to participate in the testing of the Pending Changes software over on this new test wiki - whether you're a technical incompetent like me, or you can write MediaWiki code in your sleep; having test users with a wide range of experience and expertise makes a really big difference for *any* software. Oh, and you can have multiple accounts to test editor, reviewer and admin tools - no sockpuppetry policy there. :-) I'll make a point of mentioning on this page when they have installed updates so that you can see what has changed and give feedback (and feedback means saying what's wrong with it, not just "it sucks". Does the page take too long to load? Was it clear what your options were? Was your action successful? Did the fix actually fix the problem?) The only way that we can actually see whether or not this software is suitable for use on this project is to properly put it through its paces, figure out both the technical problems (so the developers can try to solve them) and the community issues (so we can see if there is some kind of consensus), and resolve these issues one by one...or be certain that they're unresolvable. I don't know whether or not pending changes are a workable or useful idea for this project, but I am certain that until we work through this issue, together, as a community, it's going to be like a burr under our collective saddle. Risker (talk) 23:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Holocaust deaths I don't know where you got the idea that I think that *you* doubt the 6 million number. If you point it out to me I'll happily clarify whatever statement made you think that, as it was never my intention. It does seem to me that you doubt that Abbas doubts the 6 million number, and are going to some pretty amazing lengths to cast aspersions about Holocaust scholars who say this - which is bad form. Why you are doing this, I don't know. I am generously assuming that you simply made a bad call in nominating a very notable article for deletion, and rather than owning up to that bad call, you are trying to justify it, in ways that are unbecoming an office holder on this project. I know it is human and natural to do so, I just expect more from an arbitrator. HupHollandHup (talk) 23:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Tell me, what is the difference between a botany scholar who works for a tobacco company and a Holocaust scholar who works for an organization whose entire purpose is to publicize the horrors of the Holocaust? Is it any less likely that a Holocaust scholar will have his funding withdrawn if he writes something that does not agree with the precepts of his employer? At the time that I nominated the article, it was nothing more than a POV fork from the Mahmoud Abbas article, where the same subject matter was actually covered more thoroughly, without being a coatrack for a bunch of extra quotes of dubious provenance. There was no evidence it was notable at the time of the nomination; quite the opposite, in fact. Instead of complaining that all the critics were pure as the driven snow, other editors worked hard to improve the article, to make it more neutral, to search for better and more accurate sourcing. (Incidentally, I did so as well; take a look at the article history.) You say here "What exactly is the point of the semantic nitpicking with regards to the first 3 references, when you concede that here is really no question about the true authorship , per the final one? When you are in a hole, stop digging." The answer is that the first three references were the ones that were being used in the article, and they did not say what was attributed to them; only the fifth reference, which AgadaUrbanit worked diligently to locate, met the high standard required for attributing sole authorship of a controversial book to a living person. (You may not be aware of this, but it is commonplace to have others "assist" in rewriting a scholarly thesis into a book.) When writing about a living person, particularly when the article is mainly focused on criticism of that person and his works, the reference sourcing must be impeccable. My "nitpicking" was a free lesson in the need to keep looking until an independent high quality third party reference source is found for attribution of key facts in an article; sources that imply but do not state the necessary information aren't good enough. That's not nitpicking, it's upholding this project's verifiability, neutrality, and BLP policies. These are core policies, and their application is not optional, especially not in a contentious topic area. Consider my work with this article to be a free lesson in sourcing, collaboration, and ensuring that an article about a contentious topic is accurate, balanced and reliant only on appropriately attributed reliable sources. I was "walking the talk", illustrating the correct application of our core policies, which I venture to guess is what most Wikipedians expect of arbitrators. There are still issues with this article; the English translations of several quotes aren't attributed to reliable sources, which means the article is still in shaky ground, but there is some indication that the Simon Wiesenthal Center may have published a translation at some point. Perhaps you could look for that, and collaborate on making this a better article. If it gets cleaned up completely, maybe someone might want to nominate it for good article status, but it's not there yet. In the same link as I posted above, I came away with the strong impression that you were implying, since I did not denounce Abbas and did not unreservedly support Medoff, that I too was a Holocaust denier, which could not be further from the truth. (I asked two other people to look at that edit, and they thought the same thing.) Given that I had just said that I believed such a characterization of a person was grossly insulting, the implication bordered on a personal attack. Now, I've been an arbitrator for almost two years, so I've got a pretty thick skin; but I was not about to leave that impression unchallenged, because it goes to my personal beliefs. You indicate above that you did not intend to imply that, and I accept your apology. Risker (talk) 04:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC) I'll try to keep this short: If you don't know the difference between a commercial entity with business interests (tobacco comapny) and an academic research institution, you should not be editing Wikipedia, let alone sitting as an arbitrator on its highest dispute resolution function. Medoff had a distinguished career as a scholar before he joined the Wyman Institute, and currently runs it as a director. To suggest, as you are doing, that he is compromising his academic integrity by writing flawed research for personal financial gain, is a serious violation of BLP, and likely a libelous statement that could get the project sued. As I wrote earlier: You are deep, deep, in a hole, continuing to write indefensible excuses on behalf of a thesis that multiple scholars have identified as Holocausts denial. Just stop it - it's unbecoming of you, and unbecoming of the post you hold. The AfD was already closed as a 'Keep' - proving what has been obvious for quite some time for everyone but you, - that it is a notable subject and you made a bad call in nominating it for deletion. It happens to everyone. Accept it and move on. HupHollandHup (talk) 14:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC) You're right, a better comparison would have been with another academic organization, like the Fraser Institute, where only the most fiscally conservative academics are invited to participate. Foundations and academic institutions such as these most certainly select their academics based on the positions they have taken in the past, and this bias is normally taken in to account when using their academics as a reference source, particularly when they use hyperbole in the title of their report. And yes, I still believe that calling someone a Holocaust denier when it's pretty obvious even from the translated quotes we've been able to dig up that there was no denial that the Holocaust took place is deliberately provocative hyperbole. Perhaps you should read the AfD close argument again, or even the next section here. The work that Markovitz and AgadaUrbanit in particular did to bring the article up to a minimum standard instead of the quote farm that was inaccurate and contained less information than the Mahmoud Abbas article was sufficient to assure me that there are enough facts about the book to keep it, and I asked to have the AfD closed. As it turns out, its close may well have been outside policy, because nobody seems to be able to find any policy that describes how to withdraw an AfD. Risker (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC) AfD results Risker, it is nice to meet you personally on your talk page. Thank you for investing your time into this. I had my doubts at first, though agree sources are overwhelming. Tthe attention and review only improved the article, so the procedure was positive if you ask me. Thank you for your kind words, hope the article will remain on your watch list. More eyeballs definitely better. Stay well. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC) I am very glad to hear that you feel that way, AgadaUrbanit; it was very good to collaborate with you and with Markovitz to improve this article, and it was especially good to see both of you rising to the occasion by seeking to attain the high standards that the project expects for a contentious topic. There is still work to do, and I'll try to get back to the article soon to help out some more; however, I have a few other responsibilities I need to attend to. I have to admit that I found it quite funny when, after FT2 had closed the AfD, another administrator whom I'd messaged earlier said he wouldn't have done it; turns out none of us could find any particular rule about withdrawing AfD nominations. Risker (talk) 04:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC) Idea for you I read in a mainstream (not right of centre) newspaper today that there are paid bloggers that are trained and paid to steer discussion to one political side. The AC and all editors and administrators should be mindful of this. In fact, everyone should be mindful of this. So perceived concensus can be manipulated. Wikipedia should make a new effort to strive for the neutral perspective and even get it into the Wikipedia lexicon and culture. Consensus should remain a goal but neutral perspective should be a higher goal. Neutral perspective cannot be manipulated by paid bloggers but consensus can be manipulated. Wikipedia must not be manipulated! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)